General CE Chat

The Firestarter said:
The point you make is somewhat naive and a bit childish. You should be campaigning for the reduction of war-conducting powers available to the Office of the POTUS. Because with the power, the were withing their authority to do it.
Click to expand...

I am and I did even back when Obama (who I voted for) was president.
 
Eboue said:
Stop denying the obvious because it is inconvenient to you.
Click to expand...

I respect a lot of your views and points, but you know that's not murder, that's not what the word means, and you should at least call it what it is. You're using the word murder because it's inconvenient to you to use the term that it actually is, because it wouldn't have the emotional impact of using the word murderer.
 
Zarlak said:
I respect a lot of your views and points, but you know that's not murder, that's not what the word means, and you should at least call it what it is. You're using the word murder because it's inconvenient to you to use the term that it actually is, because it wouldn't have the emotional impact of using the word murderer.
Click to expand...

It should have emotional impact. It's so easy to be detached when ordering the deaths of civilians around the world that these guys do it hundreds of times. It's even easier for Americans who never face those decisions to ignore what is happening. Wedding parties are being targeted. Children are being killed. It is murder and we have to see it as such to change it, instead of just saying "aw shucks all presidents do it".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
 
Eboue said:
It should have emotional impact. It's so easy to be detached when ordering the deaths of civilians around the world that these guys do it hundreds of times. It's even easier for Americans who never face those decisions to ignore what is happening. Wedding parties are being targeted. Children are being killed. It is murder and we have to see it as such to change it, instead of just saying "aw shucks all presidents do it".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
Click to expand...

It's not murder because you say it is. Murder is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Saying he's not a murder doesn't mean that his decisions haven't resulted in the deaths of innocent people, but you can't tell someone that they can't protest something because it's inconvenient to them when you're the one using the wrong word. And it doesn't matter if you consider it to be the same, the statement is still completely false. It's one thing to say that Obama is responsible for decisions that have resulted in the deaths of innocent people (true) but it's completely untrue to state that he is a murder. That's just not what murder is.
 
Zarlak said:
It's not murder because you say it is. Murder is a very specific term with a very specific meaning. Saying he's not a murder doesn't mean that his decisions haven't resulted in the deaths of innocent people, but you can't tell someone that they can't protest something because it's inconvenient to them when you're the one using the wrong word. And it doesn't matter if you consider it to be the same, the statement is still completely false.
Click to expand...

I think you are being a pedant. The death penalty is state murder.
 
Eboue said:
I think you are being a pedant. The death penalty is state murder.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not at all. I'll be the first to admit that I'm incredibly pedantic, but this is a very specific legal term and you're completely misusing it. Your statement is factually wrong, completely wrong. That's all there is to it. You can't reinvent the definition of murder to suit your own purposes. Pointing that out doesn't mean denying that Obama's decisions have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. You should have to borrow a word from elsewhere that doesn't fit, in order to evoke an emotional response and then try to tell people they can't ignore it just because it's inconvenient to them, when you're wrong to begin with. Your deliberate choice of language makes it seem more serious than it is and you're doing it willingly which is an agenda. You shouldn't need to do that in order to make your point. You can't make such an emotionally charged statement (incorrectly to begin with) and then take issue with it being pointed out that you're wrong.
 
Eboue said:
Stop denying the obvious because it is inconvenient to you.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I was talking about. The reality if the situation is clear for all of us but you drag this thread in to a loop of infinity with this shit. Hillary was a shit candidate and the usual dodgy politician. That doesn't take away from the great things she has done for women and children in this country and around the world. I now expect you to post a breitbart article about how she was in the room when some woman or child got fecked over.
The Dems, although cowards and panderers have done more good for people in this country, red and blue, over the last 50 years then the republicans. I know expect you to post a video of how the dems, dixiecrats, treated people of color 70 years ago.
Trump is a dumb cnut who knows nothing about anything, a complete headcase who's agenda will literally destroy my family's immediate future if implemented yet all you say is meh, he's better then Pence.
You can see where this is going I'm sure. You're points are valid, mostly correct regarding the realities and I click and read you're links more often then not but holy feck are you exhausting. And a Trump fan, you say you rant but you are. There is nothing in you're posting history on this subject that suggests you have m a problem with him.
You preach about Obama's drone program but let me tell you this. The dismantling of Medicad to pay for tax cuts will kill more innocent people in a month than Obamas drone strikes would in a generation. The attack on the legal procedure of abortion in this country brings more turmoil to families then Hillary's missing emails.
You're posting history says a lot about where you're coming from and it's not from the position you claim every couple of 60 or 70 posts. Love you're links though, keep that up. Just be a bit, dare I say it, fair and balanced.
 
Last edited:
Zarlak said:
No, I'm not at all. I'll be the first to admit that I'm incredibly pedantic, but this is a very specific legal term and you're completely misusing it. Your statement is factually wrong, completely wrong. That's all there is to it. You can't reinvent the definition of murder to suit your own purposes.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, that's how language works. You're getting hung up on the legal aspect of some definitions of murder. Did Cain murder Abel, as there were no laws at that time? I think most people would agree he did.
 
GiddyUp said:
This is exactly what I was talking about. The reality if the situation is clear for all of us but you drag this thread in to a loop of infinity with this shit. Hillary was a shit candidate and the usual dodgy politician. That doesn't take away from the great things she has done for women and children in this country and around the world. I now expect you to post a breitbart article about how she was in the room when someone got fecked over.
The Dems, although cowards and panderers have done more good for people in this country, red and blue, over the last 50 years then the republicans. I know expect you to post a video of how the dems, dixiecrats, treated people of color 70 years ago.
Trump is a dumb cnuts who knows nothing about anything, a complete headcase who's agenda will literally destroy my families immediate future if implemented yet all you say is meh, he's better then Pence.
You can see where this is going I'm sure. You're points are valid, mostly correct regarding the realities and I click and read you're links more often then not but holy feck are you exhausting. And a Trump fan, you say you rant but you are.
Click to expand...


I've never once posted a breitbart article. I'm not sure if you are getting me mixed up with someone else but it would be nice if you could stop making things up.
 
Eboue said:
Of course you can, that's how language works. You're getting hung up on the legal aspect of some definitions of murder. Did Cain murder Abel, as there were no laws at that time? I think most people would agree he did.
Click to expand...

No, Cain did murder Abel by the definition, fairy tale withstanding. Obama has never done anything like that and you know he hasn't. These different words exist for a reason, to note gravity and severity and you're willingly using the most severe one you can, to evoke an emotional response when the act you're attributing it to actually wasn't that at all. It's just agenda posting and is somewhat sly, and you're better than that. Obama has unquestionable made decisions and pushed forward with actions that have resulted in the deaths of innocent people, several times - but he isn't a murderer. There is a gigantic difference between the two that you are being obtuse about, because I know you're intelligent enough to know the clear difference. Maybe in your head you equate all loss of life with premediated murder of another person by bashing their head in with a rock of personally shooting them in the face, but there's a clear difference.
 
Zarlak said:
No, Cain did murder Abel by the definition, fairy tale withstanding. Obama has never done anything like that and you know he hasn't. These different words exist for a reason, to note gravity and severity and you're willingly using the most severe one you can, to evoke an emotional response when the act you're attributing it to actually wasn't that at all. It's just agenda posting, and you're better than that.
Click to expand...

As I've already stated, yes I intentionally chose that word to provoke an emotional response. We disagree on what constitutes murder, even though we both agree about the actual act itself. I suppose its best to leave it there.
 
Eboue said:
As I've already stated, yes I intentionally chose that word to provoke an emotional response. We disagree on what constitutes murder, even though we both agree about the actual act itself. I suppose its best to leave it there.
Click to expand...

Then you have to concede that he isn't a murderer. You just choose to disagree with what murder is but your opinion on what murder is doesn't actually change anything or mean anything in the real world. It already has a meaning. Call him what he is, not what-he-isn't-but-you-want-to-call-him-because-it's-more-emotive-and-convenient-to-your-argument. Which is what you accused someone of doing a few posts up.
 
Zarlak said:
Then you have to concede that he isn't a murderer. You just choose to disagree with what murder is but your opinion on what murder is doesn't actually change anything or mean anything in the real world. It already has a meaning. Call him what he is, not what-he-isn't-but-you-want-to-call-him-because-it's-more-emotive-and-convenient-to-your-argument. Which is what you accused someone of doing a few posts up.
Click to expand...

I don't want to continue to sidetrack this thread, but I believe him to be a murderer so that's what I intend to call him.
 
Eboue said:
I've never once posted a breitbart article. I'm not sure if you are getting me mixed up with someone else but it would be nice if you could stop making things up.
Click to expand...
Making things up, feck off pal. Last month you were editing my posts to look like I was agreeing to you're delusion.
 
Zarlak said:
Then you have to concede that he isn't a murderer. You just choose to disagree with what murder is but your opinion on what murder is doesn't actually change anything or mean anything in the real world. It already has a meaning. Call him what he is, not what-he-isn't-but-you-want-to-call-him-because-it's-more-emotive-and-convenient-to-your-argument. Which is what you accused someone of doing a few posts up.
Click to expand...
How does ordering people to enter another country without their permission to assassinate a foreign citizen and then dumping them at sea - due to the political inconvenience of either taking them alive or allowing them a grave - rank on the murder scale?
 
Eboue said:
I don't want to continue to sidetrack this thread, but I believe him to be a murderer so that's what I intend to call him.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, you're just wrong about it that's al. Your personal beliefs don't change existing definitions. You know that, so you do you I guess but I guess people will continue to correctly tell you that you're wrong and your beliefs don't change that. As long as your only defence is that your own interpretation of murder differs to the actual one, rather than any kind of factual basis of Obama being a murderer then fair play. Like I said, I agree with almost everything you say usually, but not deliberately using words to make something seem more than it is.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
How does ordering people to enter another country without their permission to assassinate a foreign citizen and then dumping them at sea - due to the political inconvenience of either taking them alive or allowing them a grave - rank on the murder scale?
Click to expand...

I don't know what a murder scale is, but it's not murder. It's still everything you just quoted, and it's still as serious. But it's clearly not murder. That's something that you just cannot argue unless you're approaching it with the opinion of 'all loss of life is murder' which is wrong to start with, it would explain your point of view, but it would still be factually wrong. I don't see why you need to term it something that it isn't in order to make it meaningful. You should be capable of arguing the merits of the viewpoint without resorting to exaggeration to make it seem worse. Even those who commit manslaughter are not murderers, and they at least directly killed a person. I'm not sure if the opposition to this is because you or Eboue think that opposing it like this somehow diminishes the impact of what actually happened, but it doesn't at all.
 
Zarlak said:
I don't know what a murder scale is, but it's not murder. It's still everything you just quoted, and it's still as serious. But it's clearly not murder. That's something that you just cannot argue unless you're approaching it with the opinion of 'all loss of life is murder' which is wrong to start with, it would explain your point of view, but it would still be factually wrong. I don't see why you need to term it something that it isn't in order to make it meaningful. You should be capable of arguing the merits of the viewpoint without resorting to exaggeration to make it seem worse.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can. I can argue the intentional killing of another human that did not pose a direct threat, without trial, is murder. That's not 'all loss of life is murder' at all.
 
Zarlak said:
Reinventing something according to your own opinion doesn't make it a fact. You know that, and that's what you'd be doing there.
Click to expand...
What is your clear cut definition then, that makes you feel I am reinventing? For the love of god, don't make me quote the dictionary.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Yes, I can. I can argue the intentional killing of another human that did not pose a direct threat, without trial, is murder. That's not 'all loss of life is murder' at all.
Click to expand...
It would be as you say if he chose a guy on his own initiative and ordered a hit on him. However, the law allows that the President can order killings based on intelligence. So, unless that law changes, it's not a murder. By the way, do you think Osama should not have been killed but brought for trial?
 
The right use this exact thing with the word murder to argue against abortion.
 
The Firestarter said:
It would be as you say if he chose a guy on his own initiative and ordered a hit on him. However, the law allows what the President can order killings based on intelligence. So, unless that law changes, it's not a murder. By the way, do you think Osama should not have been killed but brought for trial?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I can understand the argument for his assassination and burial at sea, despite being very uncomfortable with it and unsure why even in an intellectual discussion it is considered silly to label it murder.
Ubik said:
The right use this exact thing with the word murder to argue against abortion.
Click to expand...
No.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
What is your clear cut definition then, that makes you feel I am reinventing? For the love of god, don't make me quote the dictionary.
Click to expand...

The phrase 'murderer' would require that Obama committed the act himself. If he didn't, then he isn't a murderer. The literal definition of murderer is somebody who commits the act of murder. Somebody who commits the act of taking another life which Obama hasn't done. That isn't saying that it isn't serious, it isn't saying that it isn't as bad, and it isn't saying that it's not a big deal. It isn't saying that his decisions aren't responsible for innocent lives being taken and it doesn't downplay what he has done or is responsible for. It just isn't physically the same thing, therefore it isn't murder. It's really that simple. You'd be reinventing the definition of murder to confirm to your own opinion and it just doesn't work that way.

There's also the issue of it can only be murder if it's unlawful, and therefore if it's not unlawful it simply isn't murder. There are a myriad of other things that you can call him, but willingly using the wrong one in order to make your argument or viewpoint seem like it has more weight is silly. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to use the most extreme word that doesn't mean what you're using it for, in order to make your argument.

It may come across as semantics, but it really isn't. These distinctions exist for a reason.

Either way, this could be a valid legitimate multi page discussion but the reason I originally quoted Eboue was when he told somebody else to stop ignoring something just because it's inconvenient to him, which is hypocrisy because it's exactly what he's doing here.
 
Zarlak said:
The phrase 'murderer' would require that Obama committed the act himself. If he didn't, then he isn't a murderer. The literal definition of murderer is somebody who commits the act of murder. Somebody who commits the act of taking another life which Obama hasn't done. That isn't saying that it isn't serious, it isn't saying that it isn't as bad, and it isn't saying that it's not a big deal. It isn't saying that his decisions aren't responsible for innocent lives being taken and it doesn't downplay what he has done or is responsible for. It just isn't physically the same thing, therefore it isn't murder. It's really that simple. You'd be reinventing the definition of murder to confirm to your own opinion and it just doesn't work that way.

There's also the issue of it can only be murder if it's unlawful, and therefore if it's not unlawful it simply isn't murder. There are a myriad of other things that you can call him, but willingly using the wrong one in order to make your argument or viewpoint seem like it has more weight is silly. I don't understand why you'd feel the need to use the most extreme word that doesn't mean what you're using it for, in order to make your argument.

It may come across as semantics, but it really isn't. These distinctions exist for a reason.
Click to expand...
I'd understand your point if legally this were true. It is not. People get convicted of murder without pulling the trigger themselves.
 
Zarlak said:
Which is muted by the fact that in order for it to be murder it must be unlawful, and this isn't. Therefore it isn't murder.
Click to expand...
I'm no international law expert but my assumption was it probably was illegal to enter another country without permission and kill someone.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'm no international law expert but my assumption was it probably was illegal to enter another country without permission and kill someone.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, Obama did not enter another country and kill anybody. We can have a debate about to what degree of responsibility you share and how culpable you are for an act that you ordered, but what you just described was not carried out by Obama. Then there is the issue of Obama having the authorisation to make those decisions in the US and it be lawful. You brought up just now people being convicted for it, and if that's the standard that you're going to apply then Obama could not be convicted of this, as his actions are considered lawful.
 
Zarlak said:
Which is muted by the fact that in order for it to be murder it must be unlawful, and this isn't. Therefore it isn't murder.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this. Acts that are within a legal framework are in their own category. Although casual observers who vehemently disagree with them are still likely to use the term murder, because it invokes moral questions of whether the act was appropriate. But legally speaking they are not murder.
 
Eboue said:
Stop denying the obvious because it is inconvenient to you.
Click to expand...

Saying you voted for Obama (or whatever that means) still doesn't make that statement utterly ridiculous. He was President and obviously had to make hard decisions, most of which any of us wouldn't have the guts to make based on intelligence and circumstances but to label him a murderer is really pushing the envelope here. Bush started the wars in Iraq, you should start from there if you really wanna label Presidents as murderer.
 
Zarlak said:
Which is muted by the fact that in order for it to be murder it must be unlawful, and this isn't. Therefore it isn't murder.
Click to expand...

Were Stalin's purges murder? He even provided the courtesy of a legal trial!
 
Il Prete Rosso said:
Saying you voted for Obama (or whatever that means) still doesn't make that statement utterly ridiculous. He was President and obviously had to make hard decisions, most of which any of us wouldn't have the guts to make based on intelligence and circumstances but to label him a murderer is really pushing the envelope here. Bush started the wars in Iraq, you should start from there if you really wanna label Presidents as murderer.
Click to expand...

Try searching my posts on Bush.
 
Zarlak said:
The phrase 'murderer' would require that Obama committed the act himself. If he didn't, then he isn't a murderer. The literal definition of murderer is somebody who commits the act of murder.
Click to expand...

I'm not up to speed with U.S. criminal law but it seems to me that a person committing murder doesn't necessarily has to 'use his own hands' so to speak.

If we consider this simplified scenario: Obama gives orders to random military person in the desert to kill a civilian (and other people supposedly, 'targets') in the Middle East. Obama didn't actually 'pull the trigger', but used the military person as a simple tool it could be him that is the principal.

I'm now quoting a random book google books showed me (and I know it's English Law but I assume them to be similar, happy to stand corrected though) page 184 first sentence: "An exception to the aforementioned rule that the pricnipal must directly bring about the actus reus can be seen in the doctrine of innocent agency. This notion can best be compared to the doctrine of perpetration by means. If the person who actually committed the actus reus cannot be regarded as a participant (edit: in this case the military person) in the offence, because he acted without the necessary means rea; the master behind the scene who pulls the strings is regarded as the perpetrator. [...]"

So it seems that he actually can commit murder by ordering drone strikes, if we allege he was involved in one actual case not a general order like "using drone is legit".

What you could bring on your side is that it still needn't be murder if the casualty of a civilian is justified by some greater good aspect like it also killed Osama B who was about to blow up a market. That's very well plausible but it's a pretty big stretch still for criminal law because the actual danger coming from that person would have to be imminent and I'm not too convinced 'imminent' in the legal sense can be fulfilled from an intelligence point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.